Re: Do we actually need XP support?

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Thanks, this is helpful.
> > W2K is lightweight and perhaps less buggy in some ways that XP (that, in
> > my opinion, would need a service pack 4). The less you have on top of the
> > host system, the better you are off. W2K is the minimum if you want good
> > integration with the host.
> All I can say is, having reluctantly taken Kari's advice to try W2K, I
> find it is perceptibly better for XyWrite than XP. I have tried them both.
> XP is more sluggish even on the fastest possible modern computer. (And not
> that I am by any means an expert!)